Because nobody needs to create a whole topic more than occasionally. The rate of proliferation of topics by AFDave for no good reason is annoying in the "this requires moderation" sense.

I actually agree. Basically Dave's threads are all 'about' the same thing, and he generally opens new threads whenever he accumulates too many questions he can't answer and he wants to start with a clean slate. There's no reason to have 3-4 open threads for one person's vanity.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I like opening new topics for news items. A bunch of people see them, and if they don't start a discussion, they slowly drift down the page and are gone.

I agree with that, in theory, except that AFDave doesn't really open new threads for new ideas. When it gets too hot, he abandons one and focuses on another, generally with some issue that's already been mentioned on one or two other threads. Besides, if one wants to keep one's thread from totally drifting off the front page, one can always go in and post something in it. That pops it right back to the top.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I personaly think that Dave's doubts regarding chromosomal fusions and other patterns of primate evolution deserved their own threads.

And if someone with better judgement cares to open a thread that is about the topic of chromosomal changes in evolution, and not just about AFDave's particular disagreements, then that would likely be peachy.

But this is a moderation issue, not a topic of discussion itself, at least not here.

I support this and obviously I am one who has really found afdave's dishonest agenda irritating (yet I keep mouthing off to his nonsense, go figure).

And you're saying this thread is entirely for afdave's benefit, so it is not like he ie being banned or not allowed to speak his mind. He can only throw up in one corner now and not the entire living room.

What was the torture device in Hitchhikers guide where you could see yourself at scale in the universe? anyone remember? I couldn't find a google link in a quick search. Somehow, it reminds me of evidence for god.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

What was the torture device in Hitchhikers guide where you could see yourself at scale in the universe? anyone remember? I couldn't find a google link in a quick search. Somehow, it reminds me of evidence for god.

Ah, so Zaphod really is God.

BobP.S. is it only the radio series that explains how Zaphod survived the Total Perspective Vortex? And no I'm not telling: get the CDs yourselves!

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

I want to offer you and Steve and whoever else may be responsible my sincere thanks for creating a forum like this where "Anti-Evolution" and related topics may be discussed.

In spite of a few insults and attacks on me, there have been a large number of nice people who have had good things to say.

Thanks again!

--------------A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

I like opening new topics for news items. A bunch of people see them, and if they don't start a discussion, they slowly drift down the page and are gone.

So this is not allowed any more? I would like to do this occasionally also ... but I would not do it more than once a week ... probably less than that

I see Mr Christopher has 3 of these open right now

Jeannot said ...

Quote

I personaly think that Dave's doubts regarding chromosomal fusions and other patterns of primate evolution deserved their own threads.

Wesley--

again you can delete these 3 if you like ..."Cain's Wife""Chimp Chromo"original "Creator God Hypothesis"

Quote

And if someone with better judgement cares to open a thread that is about the topic of chromosomal changes in evolution, and not just about AFDave's particular disagreements, then that would likely be peachy.

So I don't have good judgment (other than I don't support Common Design Theory)? What criteria do I need to meet to be able to start a new topic? (not that I need one now -- I only need the two I specified -- but several people have asked me off-topic questions in my threads and at some point, it would be appropriate to start a new thread and answer them if I have time.)

--------------A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

The problem is that you are NOT answering questions even in the original thread, let alone a new one. You are just telling us what your pastor told you to think. We already know that stuff. In fact, some of the people here could have a deeper discussion of Biblical matters that your pastor probably could.

You are trying to poke holes in minutia and claiming that you are making inroads. You pop a bubble and claim that the bubble machine is not full of soap.

At first, I thought you might be truly thinking that you would like to be educated but that thought quickly evaporated. Preach away buddy. You can join the ranks of the provincial god's last gasps. The unfortunate fact is, you need to be able to modify your spiritual practices to include the ability to assimilate evidence. Don't get rid of them, we wouldn't want you to lose all your moral guidance and start raping and killing, but modify them.

You are telling us that you know something. well prove it. Answer that list of questions I asked. Because those are the foundation of the kind of science that you want to be able to critique. But do you walk in to your shop teacher and tell him that you have just proved that a table saw doesn't "actually" make straight cuts?

Your appologetics get lame as soon as you delve into them. Your questions have been answered. You just refused to recognize that. Don't talk about genetics like you know anything about it because it just makes you look dumb.

Want to debate the age of the Earth? That might be a better place for you to start. The info is a lot more managable for a guy like you. Maybe you should start there. Then move on to a geologic timeline- You know, so you can get a sense of proportion.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

So I don't have good judgment (other than I don't support Common Design Theory)?

In the matter of considering quantity of topics opened versus quality, no, in my opinion you do not, based upon what you have chosen to do with the privileges granted to you by default.

A topic should have a specific concept at issue, but only rarely should a topic revolve around one particular participant's views or be defined in just that way. Whatever else you may or may not learn here, you will come to understand that this is the "After the Bar Closes forum", not the "AFDave forum".

If you think something deserves its own topic, use a personal message to one of your correspondents to ask them to consider opening a suitable topic. This isn't rocket science.

And then re-read the part of the board rules about discussion of moderation issues being annoying, and possibly excessively annoying. That should be plain enough.

And if someone with better judgement cares to open a thread that is about the topic of chromosomal changes in evolution, and not just about AFDave's particular disagreements, then that would likely be peachy.

So I don't have good judgment (other than I don't support Common Design Theory)? †What criteria do I need to meet to be able to start a new topic? †(not that I need one now -- I only need the two I specified -- but several people have asked me off-topic questions in my threads and at some point, it would be appropriate to start a new thread and answer them if I have time.)

I don't think your lack of agreement with modern science earned you this thread, but rather your profoundly dishonest motives and the fact that it is obvious you have no intention of ever providing any evidence for the fantastic, insulting and ridiculous claims you (AIG) make does not work to your benefit at all.

You make unsupported assertions here and ignore requests to provide any evidence. You want others to play by a set of rules (provide legitimate evidence) yet you grant yourself the right to ignore those rules you expect others here to abide by.

Your children (and mine) have a word for a person who operates like that. They're called cheaters. You (rightfully) expect others here to deal from the top of the deck while you deal from the bottom.

Over on TalkRational, Hawkins starts a thread where he claims to be "researching" the possibility that "the ancients" (by which he means Seth the son of Adam) had advanced knowledge of the natural world including its size and oblateness.

No, really.

Having gone way off the reservation into woo-meister number-wanking territory he makes this rather odd assertion.

¬†

Quote

Dave Hawkins ¬†

Quote

Brother Daniel ¬†

Quote

Pingu ¬†

Quote

Dave Hawkins

In fact, evidence has been increasing in recent decades that mankind had at least as much knowledge of the natural world as did Eratosthenes even as far back as 4500 years ago.

No it hasn't.

Something I've noticed about Dave: ¬†When talking about amounts of evidence, he loves to make claims about the evidence "increasing".

It doesn't matter to him if the evidence is less than 0.01% of the amount needed to begin to take the idea seriously. ¬†As long as that tiny amount of evidence represents an INCREASE over whatever it was previously, then he imagines that the amount of evidence has some sort of momentum, and will thus continue to increase to the point where it eventually becomes overwhelming.

Apparently, he's not concerned with the overall weight of evidence; he's concerned with the rate of change of the overall weight of evidence.

(Never mind that he can't support even his claims about that rate of change. ¬†That's another issue.)

The reason I said that in this instance was because I've referred to the Wiki article on Eratosthenes several times over the years and I don't remember EVER reading that he got anywhere close to 1% of the true circumference value. ¬†I think that was a "fringe view" 10 years ago. ¬†Now it's in the Wiki article and hasn't been removed by Wesley Elsberry's goons.

Wesley, if this is a paid position I'd like an application if you don't mind.

I wish I were in a position to pay people to do useful stuff, though I think I would refer to y'all in somewhat more positive terms than "goons".

About Hawkins... just because Wikipedia hadn't until recently explicitly noted that certain old estimates of the earth's size weren't too shabby doesn't mean that the appreciation of it is recent. And he apparently still is upset over the little contretemps we had over the possibility of new alleles being produced via recombination, which played out in part in the editing of the Wikipedia article.

Hi Wesley!

--------------A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Wow. I've been moved to a new cell. I wonder if there's a bathroom in this one!

--------------A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com